The Addison Independent Essays

The Addison Independent invited essays on a variety of topics: Agriculture; Water Quality;
and Climate Change & Energy; Education and Child Care; Health Care and Housing.
Each piece provides a deeper look into my legislative work and thoughts
on how to address Vermont’s and Addison County’s challenges and opportunities.

agriculture

When I joined the Vermont legislature in 2007, I requested a seat on the House Agriculture Committee. In the first weeks of that session, I voted for a $6M milk price support payment—on top of an earlier $5M payment. Commodity milk prices then were as low as they are now, and dairy farmers were going out of business at a record pace. The state’s emergency measures were not a sustainable solution.

I responded to this dire situation with H.522, “The Viability of Vermont Agriculture,” the first of many steps I’ve taken to support dairying while expanding what we mean by food and agriculture. Today we also recognize and support local milk, butter, cheeses and ice creams; fruits and vegetables; vineyards and wineries; orchards and cider making; grain and hops production for brewing, distilling and baking; hemp and biomass for energy and fiber; nurseries and greenhouses; honey and maple syrup; beef, chicken, pork and the slaughter and packing facilities to turn them into specialty products; and a thousand more bright spots in our rapidly growing and diversifying food and agricultural economy.  

This expansion has been driven by the Farm to Plate bill, which I introduced in 2009. In the last 8 years, we have added over 7,700 new jobs, and over $100 million in increased revenue. Today there are actually more farms in the state than a decade ago.

Some dairy farmers, for reasons that are complex and personal, have chosen not to join these new markets, opting to stay in the federal milk market, which they voted to enter in 2000, and which they can vote to exit. Because Vermonters deeply care for our farm neighbors and agricultural history, we support farming through over $100 million in annual supports. But Vermont cannot change market fundamentals: a worldwide glut of milk has predictably produced low prices that our state cannot change.

As a former Secretary of the Vermont Milk Commission,I have looked deeply into the business of milk. For decades, with each painful period of low milk prices, we have heard over and over “This time it’s different. We’re going to change the pricing scheme.” It has not happened, and, to speak the plain truth, I do not think it will—because there are powerful actors in the dairy world that gain even more power with each convulsion. This commodity market operates on a dog-eat-dog mentality of producing milk cheaper than one’s competitors and then buying up their facilities, land, and cows when they go out of business. The result is a shrinking farm population that strives to produce ever cheaper milk.

Vermont will always produce milk; it will be produced by fewer and larger farms. I will continue to support dairying, and I will continue to develop our very successful Vermont model: new products, marketed and sold as Vermont products, with our hallmarks of high quality and the non-commodity pricing that comes with having a direct relationship with one’s appreciative and willing customers—customers who value their farmers and producers and who pay fair prices, not those dictated by the federal system. 

clean water

In 2015, the Vermont General Assembly passed the Vermont Clean Water Act (VCWA). As Chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, I was responsible for the Senate’s work on this comprehensive blueprint for protecting and cleaning up all the waters of the state. In Vermont, water is held “in the public trust,” meaning it is owned by all of us in common. Every citizen has the right to expect clean water, and likewise, every citizen has an obligation to do their part in protecting and cleaning up our waters. 

As we developed the VCWA, the theme was “Everybody In.” And as I walked that bill from Senate Natural Resources down to Senate Finance, I revised that theme—with the broad support of others—to “Everybody In. Everybody Pays.”

This obligation to protect and clean up our waters resides in both state and federal law. Beyond the law, I believe that this work is our moral obligation: we have been “gifted” a beautiful natural environment upon which all living things depend, and in our lifetimes, we have a stewardship duty to protect it. 

Let us acknowledge, as did the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources this past spring, that in Vermont “our water quality generally continues to decline.” We can and must do better. And we can and must fund a program adequate to turn around our water quality problems. 

If re-elected, I will again introduce a bill to raise the necessary dollars based on the “everybody in, everybody pays” philosophy. My proposal last year raised $14.4 million by asking the owners of each parcel of land to pay approximately 10 cents per day. This creates a strong, broad-base revenue for our water quality work. I hope others bring alternative proposals; I will carefully review each with an open mind. A categorical “no new fees” will not solve the very real and present task we are confronting. 

Given adequate funding, how do we spend the money well? 

Over the last three years, we have developed detailed plans for improving water quality based on science — tailoring our work to reflect the sources of pollution, region by region. Here in Addison County, 53% of the phosphorus that helps create algae blooms and grow weeds like milfoil comes from agricultural land; therefore, our largest clean-up efforts will be farm-based. We also need to address the other major sources (in declining order: forest land, stream banks, developed land, and wastewater treatment plants). When we turn our focus to other pollutants, such as the bacteria E. coli, found in fecal matter, then the science tells us to shift our focus to storm water and waste water treatment plants. 

Regardless of the pollutant, we must use science to measure the sources of pollutants and their impacts on water quality; then we must prioritize our clean-up work to make the most progress as quickly as possible by selecting the most cost-effective projects first. This is precisely what we are doing now. 

We must commit to this essential work, which when rightly viewed, is a decades-long infrastructure investment that will pay dividends in tourism, health, and quality of life. 

climate change and energy

Climate change is a real and present danger. It is not coming, it is here, and it is already loading us with enormous environmental and public health costs—including an estimated 200,000 annual deaths in the US from fossil fuel emissions, and the billions spent rebuilding after each “record-setting” hurricane. 

In the face of this reality, we must act. Vermont has a plan—the Comprehensive Energy Plan—that established our 90% renewable energy by 2050 goal. We can and must shift as rapidly as possible away from carbon-based (fossil) fuels that now produce “dirty” electricity, transportation, and heat. 

This may sound like grim news to some readers — but pause and consider: Do you actually like fossil fuels? Not likely. You probably actually want the electricity, transportation, and heat you get from fossil fuels. 

Vermont produces no fossil fuels, so when we rely on them, we have to buy them from out-of-state and out-of-country—exporting $1.5 billion dollars each year. Herein lies a great opportunity: rather than import this energy, we can produce it locally. 

Vermont’s clean and healthy energy future is electric — and the reason is simple: we know today how to generate electricity renewably, using wind, solar, hydro, and biomass. And using this locally-generated energy we can deliver not only the electricity we need, but also the transportation and heat we rely on.

We also need to maintain our efforts to reduce energy consumption by continuing our work in conservation, weatherization, and efficiency. 

Taken together — electricity, transportation, heat, and efficiency — creates Vermont’s CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY, which is one of the largest economic opportunities for our state. Clean energy is already the fastest growing sector of our economy, and 18,800 Vermonters make all or some of their living in it, often earning a good wage; while the media wage in Vermont pays $21/hour, solar jobs, for example, are paying an average of $27/hour. 

There is much more room for growth as we expand from replacing dirty electricity with clean, and then increasingly use that clean electricity for transportation (with electric vehicles that run on electricity that’s the equivalent of gas costing 80¢–$1.50/gallon); for heat (with electric heat pumps that are three times as efficient as oil-fired boilers); and all while reducing our needs through additional conservation and efficiency work. 

None of this work is exported — it requires activity here, in Vermont, town by town, building by building, and vehicle by vehicle. And when we building this clean energy economy, we are building a stronger, healthier Vermont.

EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILD CARE

QUESTION 1 – How can we get the best value out of education dollars?

Education is Bigger than K-12 and the ABC’s

When we consider education and education funding, it’s first essential to define what we mean by “education,” because in a rapidly evolving global economy that demands lifelong learning, education no longer means just the years we spend from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade and possible post-secondary education. It’s lifelong. And it’s also broader and deeper than just academics; it also involves health, wellbeing, and becoming a secure and productive member of our communities.  

This broader role of schools is often under-appreciated when we have education funding discussions. Though we call all the money flowing to a school “education dollars,” in fact, these funds also support the entire community: in addition to educating children, schools serve to deliver public health programs, including wellness and counseling, to students and their parents; food programs offer children breakfast, lunch and an afternoon meal; citizens use school facilities for public events and recreation; and more. 

In short, schools are the place at which many programs not commonly thought of as education are delivered. And communities use schools as one element in a continuum of services to deliver early care, education, and health services, from birth through age 22. 

Returning to the question posed—“how to get the best value out of education dollars”— I would propose analysis first, and actions second—specifically: 

1. revise the accounting system used for school budgets to distinguish “core educational services” (teaching) from “social services” (food, counseling, public health). We need to know how much we’re paying for what services before we determine whether we are spending too much or too little. 

2. For social services delivered through schools, analyze funding options other than the property tax. For example, outside of education, Vermont pays for social services through the General Fund, not the Education Fund. This could provide property tax relief. 

3. For the social services elements of the budget, analyze (i) whether or not schools are the best place at which to deliver the services; and (ii) for the services that are best delivered at schools, who can most cost-effectively deliver them? 

4. For both educational and social services at our schools, we can improve their effectiveness by reaching out to the population from birth to 5 to help our youngest students arrive ready to learn and succeed. In a similar way, we need to work with high school graduates to help ensure successful transitions into further education and employment. 

Following such analysis and reorganization, we will see lower “education” costs. At the same time, because so many Addison County residents struggle (e.g. 1 in 9 families live in poverty, and 1 in 6 children is food insecure), it seems likely that total spending will remain level for the age group birth to 22, other than efficiency savings. 

Turning to ACT 46, this law was designed first and foremost to provide for equal educational opportunity; the cost savings potential varies greatly by school and school district, and it is not possible to responsibly assert that the act will produce savings for all districts. We are still in the phase of organizing mergers and “alternative structures.” We will need to see how schools operate before we can draw general conclusions. With time, we will also be able to discern best practices in the new and alternative districts in order to enhance education or reduce costs, and, in some cases, both. 

QUESTION #2 – How can we improve early childcare?

Addison County, and Vermont more broadly, needs a truly affordable and accessible system of childcare. Here are some daunting recent statistics that underline this challenge: 

• Our county has approximately 175 slots for children under 2, but each year 300 children are born—yielding an under-2 population of 600 for fewer than 200 places. Some parents are registering and paying to get their coming baby on waiting lists before the child’s birth. 

• 72% of the families with children under 6 have all parents working, further expanding the need for quality childcare prior to entering full-time kindergarten. 

• Most childcare programs have waiting lists of 5 or less, but some centers have waiting lists of 20. 

• The average cost per child in early childcare centers is $12,000 to $16,000, with parents on average paying 50% of the cost.

Steps to take: 

1. For children from birth to 6, we need to fully fund the childcare subsidy program, which has not been adequately adjusted for inflation, and is currently approximately $9.6M underfunded. This increased funding can help in two ways: (i) it can increase the subsidy, making childcare more affordable for parents; and (ii) it can support better pay for childcare workers, whose generally low wages causes high employee turnover, making building and maintaining a high quality program difficult. 

2. The funding for this increased subsidy should originate in the General Fund, not the Education Fund. Because our state economy is growing, the needed money could come from that growth, from shifting dollars, or from new revenues. That complex decision making is best resolved, in tandem, by the Finance and Appropriations Committees. 

3. With the state’s declining number of students, schools have an opportunity to take unused classrooms and to convert them into childcare “centers” within the school. Such conversions can jump-start the number of childcare programs, and because such centers would be located at the schools, this eases the challenge faced by parents who now often have to take their pre-school and school-age children to two or more different facilities and locations—all before getting themselves to work.